Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 21 Aug 2018 14:15:22 -0700
From:   Doron Roberts-Kedes <doronrk@fb.com>
To:     Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
CC:     Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net>, Dave Watson <davejwatson@fb.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] strparser: remove any offset before parsing messages
Message-ID: <20180821211504.GA76892@doronrk-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
References: <1533854411-28184-1-git-send-email-asmadeus@codewreck.org>
 <1534855906-22870-1-git-send-email-asmadeus@codewreck.org>
 <20180821145321.GA44710@doronrk-mbp>
 <20180821193655.GA15354@nautica>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180821193655.GA15354@nautica>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: fb.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Aug 2018 21:15:30.5584 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: bfb57bae-b13e-4536-94ee-08d607ab39e3
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN1PR15MB0479
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-08-21_09:,,
 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
X-FB-Internal: Safe
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 09:36:55PM +0200, Dominique Martinet wrote:

> One of the solutions I had suggested was adding a flag at strparser
> setup time to only do that pull for users which cannot handle offset,
> but nobody seemed interested two weeks ago. I can still do that.

This seems overly complicated. 

> That's still suboptimal, but I don't have any better idea.
> To properly fix the users, I'd really need help with how bpf works to
> even know if passing an offset would be possible in the first place, as
> I do not see how at this time.

Thanks for clarifying Dominique.
It seems like we mainly agree that the proposed patch is suboptimal for
existing clients of the library that use offset correctly (tls). 

It also seems like you've identified that the proper fix is in bpf. 
Regrettably, I cannot help you understand how bpf works because I'm not
familiar with that code. 

As an aside, I would recommend reaching the netdev FAQ page:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt

It contains helpful hints about how to format email subjects (specifying
net vs. net-next) and determining when trees are closed (currently
closed).